Henslin James M. Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
cial movement. The third public consists of disinterested people.
They are either unaware of the social movement or, if they are
aware, are indifferent to it.
In selecting tactics, the leaders pays attention to these publics.
The sympathetic public is especially significant, because it is the
source of new members and support at the ballot box. Leaders
avoid tactics that they think might alienate the sympathetic pub-
lic and seek strategies that will elicit sympathy from this group.
To make themselves appear to be victims—people whose rights
are being trampled on—leaders may even force a confrontation
with the hostile public. Tactics directed toward the indifferent or
unaware public are designed to neutralize their indifference and
increase their awareness.
Relationship to Authorities. In determining tactics, the move-
ment’s relationship to authorities is also significant. This is especially
true when it comes to choosing between peaceful and violent ac-
tions. If a social movement is institutionalized—accepted by author-
ities—violence will not be directed toward the authorities, for they
are on the movement’s side. This, however, does not rule out using
violence against the opposition. In contrast, if authorities are hostile
to a social movement, they may become the object of aggression or violence. For example,
because the goal of a transformative (revolutionary) social movement is to replace the govern-
ment, the movement and the government are clearly on a collision course.
Propaganda and the Mass Media
The leaders of social movements try to manipulate the mass media to influence public
opinion, how people think about some issue. The right kind of publicity enables the leaders
to arouse sympathy and to lay the groundwork for recruiting more members. Pictures of
bloodied, dead baby seals, for example, go a long way toward getting a group’s message across.
A key to understanding social movements, then, is propaganda. Although this word
often evokes negative images, it actually is a neutral term. Propaganda is simply the
presentation of information in an attempt to influence people. Its original meaning was
positive. Propaganda referred to a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church
whose assignment was the care of foreign missions. (They were to propagate—multiply or
spread—the faith.) The term has traveled a long way since then, however, and today it usu-
ally refers to one-sided information designed to distort reality.
Propaganda, in the sense of organized attempts to influence public opinion, is a part
of everyday life. Our news is filled with propaganda, as various interest groups—from
retailers to the government—try to manipulate our perceptions of the world. Our
movies, too, although seemingly intended as simply entertainment devices, are actually
propaganda vehicles. The basic techniques that underlie propaganda are discussed in the
Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.
The mass media play such a crucial role that we can say they are the gatekeepers to so-
cial movements. If those who control and work in the mass media—from owners to re-
porters—are sympathetic to some particular “cause,” you can be sure that it will receive
sympathetic treatment. If the social movement goes against their views, however, it likely
will be ignored or receive unfavorable treatment. If you ever get the impression that the
media are trying to manipulate your opinions and attitudes—even your feelings—on some
particular issue or social movement, you probably are right. Far from providing unbiased
reporting, the media are under the control and influence of people who have an agenda.
To the materials in the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on propaganda, then, we need to add
the biases of the media establishment—the topics it chooses to publicize, those it chooses
to ignore, and its favorable and unfavorable treatment of issues and movements.
Sociology can be a liberating discipline (Berger 1963/2007). Sociology sensitizes us to
multiple realities; that is, for any single point of view on some topic, there are competing
points of view. Each represents reality as people see it, their distinct experiences having led
Types and Tactics of Social Movements 641
Source: By the author.
FIGURE 21.3 The Membership and
Publics of Social Movements
1. The
inner core
2
.
T
h
e
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
3
.
T
h
e
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
4
.
S
y
m
p
a
t
h
e
t
i
c
p
u
b
l
i
c
5
.
H
o
s
t
i
l
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
6
.
I
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
u
n
a
w
a
r
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
Members
Publics
public opinion how people
think about some issue
propaganda in its broad
sense, the presentation of
information in the attempt to
influence people; in its narrow
sense, one-sided information
used to try to influence people
642 Chapter 21 COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
“Tricks of the Trade”—Deception
and Persuasion in Propaganda
S
ociologists Alfred and Elizabeth Lee (1939) found
that propaganda relies on seven basic techniques,
which they termed “tricks of the trade.” To be
effective, the techniques should be subtle, with the au-
dience unaware that their minds and emotions are
being manipulated. If propaganda is effective, people
will not know why they support something, but they’ll
fervently defend it. Becoming familiar with these tech-
niques can help you keep your mind and emotions
from being manipulated.
Name calling. This technique aims to arouse
opposition to the competing product, candi-
date, or policy by associating it with negative images.
By comparison, one’s own product, candidate, or pol-
icy is attractive. Republicans who call Democrats
“soft on crime” and Democrats who call Republicans
“insensitive to the poor” are using this technique.
Glittering generality. Essentially the opposite of
the first technique, this one surrounds the
product, candidate, or policy with images that
arouse positive feelings.“She’s a real Democrat” has
little meaning, but it makes the audience feel that
something substantive has been said.“This Republi-
can stands for individual rights” is so general that it
is meaningless; yet the audience thinks that it has
heard a specific message about the candidate.
Transfer. In its positive form, this technique
associates the product, candidate, or policy
with something the public approves of or re-
spects.You might not be able to get by with saying
“Coors is patriotic,” but surround a beer with im-
ages of the country’s flag, and beer drinkers will
get the idea that it is more patriotic to drink this
brand of beer than some other kind. In its negative
form, this technique associates the product, candi-
date, or policy with something generally disap-
proved of by the public.
Testimonials. Famous individuals endorse a
product, candidate, or policy. David Beckham
lends his name to Gillette, and Beyoncé tells you
that L’Oréal is a great line of cosmetics. In the nega-
tive form of this technique, a despised person is as-
sociated with the competing product. If propagandists
(called “spin doctors” in politics) could get away
with it, they would show Osama bin Laden announc-
ing support for a candidate they oppose.
Plain folks. Sometimes it pays to associate the
product, candidate, or policy with “just plain
folks.” “If Mary or John Q. Public likes it, you will, too.”
A political candidate who kisses babies, puts on a
hard hat, and has lunch at McDonald’s while pho-
tographers “catch him (or her) in the act” is using
the “plain folks” strategy.“I’m just a regular person”
is the message of the presidential candidate who
poses for photographers in jeans and work shirt—
while making certain that the chauffeur-driven Mer-
cedes does not show up in the background.
Card stacking. The aim of this technique is to
present only positive information about
what you support, and only negative information
about what you oppose. The intent is to make it
sound as though there is only one conclusion a ra-
tional person can draw. Falsehoods, distortions, and
illogical statements are often used.
Bandwagon. “Everyone is doing it” is the idea
behind this technique. Emphasizing how
many other people buy the product or sup-
port the candidate or policy conveys the message
that anyone who doesn’t join in is on the wrong track.
The Lees (1939) added,“Once we know that a speaker
or writer is using one of these propaganda devices in an
attempt to convince us of an idea, we can separate the
device from the idea and see what the idea amounts to
on its own merits.”
For Your Consideration
What propaganda techniques have you seen or heard
recently? Recall not just product ads but also TV pro-
grams, political ads, movies, and newspaper articles. Ex-
plain why they were propaganda, not simply a source of
information or entertainment.
Down-to-Earth Sociology
You probably know immediately why the photo on the left is
propaganda, but do you know why the photo on the right is
propaganda?
Why People Join Social Movements 643
them to different perceptions. Consequently, different people find opposing points of
view equally compelling. Although the committed members of a social movement are
sincere—and perhaps even make sacrifices for “the cause”—theirs is but one view of the
world. If other sides were presented, the issue would look quite different.
Why People Join Social Movements
As we have seen, social movements are fed by a sense of injustice—a conviction that we
can no longer tolerate some condition of society. However, not everyone who feels this way
joins a social movement. Why do some join, but not others? Sociologists have found that
recruitment generally follows channels of social networks. That is, people most commonly
join a social movement because they have friends and acquaintances already in it (McCarthy
and Wolfson 1992; Snow et al. 1993a).
Let’s look at three explanations for why people join social movements.
Mass Society Theory
To explain why people are attracted to social movements, sociologist William Kornhauser
(1959) proposed mass society theory. Kornhauser argued that many people feel isolated
because they live in a mass society—an impersonal, industrialized, highly bureaucratized
society. Social movements fill this void by offering a sense of belonging.
This theory has been criticized severely (Thomson 2005). When sociologist Doug
McAdam and his colleagues (McAdam et al. 1988) interviewed people who had risked
their lives in the civil rights movement, they found that these participants had strong
roots in families and communities. They were motivated by a desire to right wrongs and
to overcome injustices—not to escape isolation. Even the Nazis attracted many people
who were firmly rooted in their communities (Oberschall 1973). Finally, the most isolated
of all, the homeless, generally do not join anything—except food lines.
Deprivation Theory
A second explanation for why people join social movements is deprivation theory. Accord-
ing to this theory, people who feel deprived—whether it be of money, justice, status, or
privilege—join social movements with the hope of redressing their grievances. This
theory may seem so obvious that it needs no evidence. Don’t the thousands of African
Americans who participated in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and the
World War I soldiers who marched on Washington after Congress refused to pay their
promised bonuses provide ample evidence that the theory is true?
Deprivation theory does provide a starting point. But there is more to the matter than
this. About 150 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville (1856/1955) made a telling observation.
Both the peasants of Germany and the peasants of France were living under deprived con-
ditions. According to deprivation theory, if revolution were to occur we would expect it
to take place in both countries. Only the French peasants rebelled and overthrew their
king, however. The reason, said de Tocqueville, is relative deprivation. The living condi-
tions of the French peasants had been improving, and they could foresee even better cir-
cumstances ahead. German peasants, in contrast, had never experienced anything but
depressed conditions, and they had no comparative basis for feeling deprived.
According to relative deprivation theory, then, it is not people’s actual deprivation
that matters. The key to participation in social movements is relative deprivation—what
people think they should have relative to what others have, or relative to their own ef-
forts, abilities, status, or even their perceived future. Relative deprivation theory, which
has provided insight into revolutions, holds a surprise. Because improving conditions fuel
human desire for even better conditions, improving conditions can spark revolutions—
which is why revolution occurred in France, not Germany. As Figure 21.4 shows, revolu-
tions tend to occur when people’s expectations outstrip the change they experience. It is
likely that we can also apply this principle to riots.
mass society theory an ex-
planation for why people par-
ticipate in a social movement
based on the assumption that
the movement offers them a
sense of belonging
mass society industrialized,
highly bureaucratized, imper-
sonal society
relative deprivation theory
in this context, the idea that
people join social movements
based on what they think they
should have compared with
what others have
R
i
s
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
c
t
u
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
The growing gap
between expectations
and conditions
Time 2Time 1
FIGURE 21.4
Relative Deprivation
and Revolution
644 Chapter 21 COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
Relative deprivation also explains an interesting aspect of the civil rights movement. Rel-
atively well-off African Americans—college students and church leaders—were at the center
of the sit-ins, marches, and boycotts in the South during the 1950s and 1960s. They went to
restaurants and lunch counters that were reserved for whites. When refused service, they sat
peacefully while curses and food were heaped on them (Morris 1993). You might want to re-
view the photo on page 353. Why did they subject themselves to such treatment? Remem-
ber that according to relative deprivation theory, what is significant is not what we have or
don’t have, but with whom we compare ourselves. The African American demonstrators com-
pared themselves with whites of similar status, and they perceived themselves as deprived.
How about the white, middle-class college students and the white church leaders from
the North? They, too, risked their lives when they joined the Southern protesters. They
weren’t comparing themselves with people whose situation was better than their own.
Nor was their own personal welfare at stake. Relative deprivation theory doesn’t help us
here. We need to look at the moral reasons for their involvement (McAdam et al. 1988;
Jasper 2007). Let’s consider that motivation in social movements.
Moral Issues and Ideological Commitment
As sociologist James Jasper (2007) points out, we will miss the basic reason for many peo-
ple’s involvement in social movements if we overlook the moral issue—people getting
upset about the injustice that others experience and wanting to do something about it.
Some people join because of moral shock—a sense of outrage at finding out what is “re-
ally” going on. For people who view a social movement in moral terms, great issues hang
in the balance. They feel they must choose sides and do what they can to help right
wrongs. As sociologists put it, they join because of ideological commitment to the movement.
Many members on both sides of the abortion issue, for example, perceive their involve-
ment in such terms. Similarly, activists in the animal rights movement are convinced that
there can be no justification for making animals suffer in order to make safer products for
humans. Activists in the peace and environmental movements and those who protest against
global capitalism view nuclear weapons, pollution, and global power in similar moral terms.
It is for moral reasons that they risk arrest and ridicule for their demonstrations. For them,
to not act would be an inexcusable betrayal of future generations. The moral component of
a social movement, then, is a primary reason for many people’s involvement.
A Special Case: The Agent
Provocateur
Agent provocateurs are a unique type
of participant in social movements.
These are agents of the government or
even of the opposing sides of a social
movement whose job is to spy on the
leaders and perhaps to sabotage their ac-
tivities. Some are recruited from the
membership itself—people who are
willing to betray their friends in the or-
ganization for a few Judas dollars. Oth-
ers are police or members of a rival
group who infiltrate the movement.
The radical social change advocated
by some social movements poses a threat
to the power elite. In such cases, the use
of agent provocateurs is not surprising.
What may be surprising, however, is that
some agents convert to the social move-
ment they have infiltrated. Sociologist
Gary Marx (1993) explains that to be
credible, agents must share at least some
of the class, age, gender, racial–ethnic, or
The Michigan militia is not run by the federal or state governments or any government
agency. It is a private organization, made up of individuals who fear increasing government
control over individual freedoms. It is likely that their membership includes state and federal
agents who have infiltrated the group.
agent provocateur some-
one who joins a group in order
to spy on it or to sabotage it
by provoking its members to
commit extreme acts
religious characteristics of the group. This background makes the agents more likely to be
sympathetic to the movement’s goals and to become disenchanted with trying to harm the
group. To be effective, agents must also work their way into the center of the group. This
requires that they spend time with the group’s committed members. As these agents spend
time building trust, they often are cut off from their own group. The point of view they rep-
resent can start to recede in their minds, to be replaced with concerns about betraying and
deceiving people who now trust them as friends.
What also may be surprising is how far some agents are willing to go. During the 1960s, when
a wave of militant social movements streamed across the United States, the FBI recruited agent
provocateurs to sabotage some of these groups. These agents provoked illegal activities that oth-
erwise would not have occurred: They set the leadership up for arrest and, in some instances,
set them up for death. Two examples will let us see how agent provocateurs operate (Marx
1993). In a plot by a group called the Black Liberation Front to blow up the Statue of Liberty,
one of the four men involved was an undercover agent. It was he who drew up the plans and
even provided funds to pay for the dynamite and rent the car. In another instance, the FBI paid
$36,500 to two members of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan to bomb a Jewish busi-
nessman’s home. The two walked into the FBI trap, one was killed and the other was arrested.
In Sum: There is no single reason that people join social movements. Most people join be-
cause they have friends and acquaintances already in the movement. Some join because of
moral convictions, others to further their own careers. Still others join because they find a val-
ued identity, or even because it is fun. Some even participate although they don’t want to. The
Cuban government, for example, compels people to turn out for mass demonstrations to show
support of the Communist regime (Aguirre 1993). As we just saw, police agents may join so-
cial movements in order to spy on them and sabotage their activities. As in all other activities
in life, people remain a complex bundle of motivations—a challenge for sociologists to unravel.
On the Success and Failure
of Social Movements
Some social movements have brought about extensive social change, but most are not
successful. Let’s look at the reasons for their success or failure.
The Rocky Road to Success
Social movements come, and social movements go—and most go quietly without leav-
ing much of an impact on society. Why? To exist, a social movement must focus on a
problem that concerns a large number of people. Broad problems, however, are embed-
ded deeply in society. This means that minor tinkering with something superficial won’t
solve the problem. Just as the problem touches many interrelated components of society,
so the solutions must be broad. No quick fix is available for such social conditions, so the
social movement must last for years—and longevity brings its own risks. As social move-
ments lose momentum, their leaders often turn inward, focusing their energies more on
keeping the organization going than on working toward the solution of the problem that
is the reason for the movement’s existence.
Some social movements, in contrast, leave a heritage that changes a society and even world
history. The civil rights movement and the women’s movement, for example, became powerful
forces for social change. Their agitation for change was so successful that they turned society onto
different paths. In another direction was the fascist social movement mentioned earlier. Led by
Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy, this social movement turned the world upside down.
Like anything else in life, the consequences of social movements can be good or bad. What they
all have in common is social change, either to promote it or to resist it. With a changing soci-
ety such as ours, we can anticipate that new social movements will be a regular feature of our
social landscape.
Seeing the stages that social movements go through can help us to better understand why
social movements succeed or fail. Let’s look at these stages.
On the Success and Failure of Social Movements 645
The Stages of Social Movements
Sociologists have identified five stages in the growth and maturity of social movements
(Lang and Lang 1961; Mauss 1975; Spector and Kitsuse 1977; Jasper 1991; Tilly 2004):
1. Initial unrest and agitation. During this first stage, people are upset about some con-
dition in society and want to change it. Leaders emerge who verbalize people’s feel-
ings and crystallize issues. Most social movements fail at this stage. Unable to gain
enough support, after a brief flurry of activity, they fade away.
2. Resource mobilization. A crucial factor that enables social movements to make it past the
first stage is resource mobilization. By this term, sociologists mean organizing and using
resources such as time, money, information, mailing lists, and people’s skills. It also in-
cludes using communications technology such as cell phones, Internet sites, blogs, and
tweets—and getting the attention of the mass media. For the Civil Rights Movement,
these resources included access to churches to organize protests (Mirola 2003).
In some groups, the members mobilize these resources. Other groups, lacking
capable leadership, turn to “guns for hire,” outside specialists who sell their services.
As sociologists John McCarthy and Mayer Zald (1977; Zald and McCarthy 1987)
point out, even though large numbers of people may be upset over some condition
of society, without resource mobilization they are only upset people, perhaps even
agitators, but they do not constitute a social movement.
3. Organization. A division of labor is set up. The leaders make policy decisions, and the
rank and file do the daily tasks necessary to keep the movement going. There is still
much collective excitement about the issue, the movement’s focal point of concern.
4. Institutionalization. At this stage, the movement has developed a bureaucracy, the
type of formal hierarchy that was described in Chapter 7. Control lies in the hands
of career officers, who may care more about their own position in the organization
than the movement for which the organization’s initial leaders made sacrifices. The
collective excitement diminishes.
5. Decline and death. During this phase, managing the day-to-day affairs of the organ-
ization dominates the leadership. A change in public sentiment may even have oc-
curred, and there may no longer be a group of committed people who share a
common cause. The movement eventually withers away, although a small staff can
remain for years until the last of the funds are drained.
Resurgence
The final stage of decline and death can be postponed for decades, perhaps even for generations,
as events breath new life into a social movement and as committed, fresh blood replaces falter-
ing leaders. The outstanding example is the abortion movement, whose prochoice and prolife
sides continue to energize one another. To close this chapter, let’s look at this social movement.
646 Chapter 21 COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
ThinkingCRITICALLY
Which Side of the Barricades? Prochoice and Prolife
as a Social Movement
N
o issue so divides Americans as abortion. Although most Americans take more
moderate views, on one side are some who believe that abortion should be per-
mitted under any circumstance, even during the last month of pregnancy. They are
matched by individuals on the other side who are convinced that abortion should never be
allowed under any circumstances, not even in the case of rape or incest or during the first
month of pregnancy. This polarization constantly breathes new life into the movement.
When the U.S. Supreme Court made its 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade, that states could not
prohibit abortion, the prochoice side relaxed. Victory was theirs, and they thought their
resource mobilization
a theory that social move-
ments succeed or fail based
on their ability to mobilize
resources such as time,
money, and people’s skills
opponents would quietly fade away. Instead, large numbers of Americans
were disturbed by what they saw as the legal right to murder unborn
children.
The views of the two sides could not be more incompatible. Those
who favor choice view the 1.2 million abortions that are performed annu-
ally in the United States as examples of women exercising their basic re-
productive rights. Those who gather under the prolife banner see these
abortions as legalized murder. To the prochoice side, those who oppose
abortion are blocking women’s rights—they would force women to con-
tinue pregnancies they want to terminate. To the prolife side, those who
advocate choice are perceived as condoning murder—they would sacri-
fice their unborn children for the sake of school, career, or convenience.
There is no way to reconcile these contrary views. Each sees the other as unreasonable
and extremist. And each uses propaganda by focusing on worst-case scenarios: prochoice
images of young women raped at gunpoint, forced to bear the children of rapists; prolife im-
ages of women who are eight months pregnant killing their babies instead of nurturing them.
With no middle ground, these views remain in perpetual conflict. As each side fights for
what it considers to be basic rights, it reinvigorates the other. When in 1989 the U.S.
Supreme Court decided in Webster v. Reproductive Services that states could restrict abor-
tion, one side mourned it as a defeat and the other hailed it as a victory. Seeing the political
battle going against them, the prochoice side regrouped for a determined struggle. The pro-
life side, sensing judicial victory within its grasp, gathered forces for a push to complete the
overthrow of Roe v. Wade.
In 1992, this goal of the prolife side almost became reality in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to make women wait
24 hours between confirming their pregnancy and getting an abortion; to require girls
under 18 to obtain the consent of one parent; and to require that women be given materi-
als which describe the fetus and that they be informed about alternatives to abortion. In the
same case, however, by a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that a wife does not have to inform
her husband if she intends to have an abortion. In 2007, in another 5–4 decision, the Court
ruled a certain type of abortion procedure illegal. The names given this late-term proce-
dure represent the ongoing struggle: One side calls it an “intact dilation and evacuation,”
while the other side terms it a “partial-birth abortion.”
The struggle of the opposing sides is usually a quiet affair, but it makes headlines each
time the Senate is asked to confirm a president’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. To
watch these hearings is to view, in miniature, irreconcilable views of reality. This social
movement also makes headlines when opposing sides confront one another in street
drama, each wielding signs in the attempt to capture the attention of the mass media.There
is also the rare, but more powerfully headline-grabbing assassination of doctors who per-
form abortions. National attention was focused briefly on Wichita, Kansas, for example,
On the Success and Failure of Social Movements 647
With sincere people on both sides of the issue—equally
committed and equally convinced that their side is right—
abortion is destined to remain a controversial force in U.S. life.
648 Chapter 21 COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
when George Tiller, who specialized in late-term abortions, was shot to death at his church,
a murder disavowed by prolife organizations.
With emotions raw and convictions firm, this social movement cannot end unless an
overwhelming majority of Americans commit to one side or the other. Short of this, every
legislative and judicial outcome—including the extremes of a constitutional amendment that
declares abortion to be either murder or a woman’s right—is a victory to one and a defeat
to the other. To committed activists, no battle is ever complete. Rather, each action is only
one small part of a long, hard-fought, moral struggle.
For Your Consideration
The last stage of a social movement is decline and death. Why hasn’t this social move-
ment declined? Under what conditions will it decline and die?
The longer the duration of the pregnancy, the fewer the number of Americans who ap-
prove of abortion. How do you feel about abortion during the third month versus the seventh
month? The first month versus the ninth month? What do you think about abortion in cases
of rape and incest? Can you identify some of the social reasons that underlie your opinions?
Sources: Williams 1995; Douthat 2008; Crary 2009; Statistical Abstract of the United States 2011:Table 99.
SUMMARY and REVIEW
Early Explanations: The Transformation
of the Individual
How did early theorists explain the ways
that crowds affect people?
Early theorists of collective behavior argued that crowds
transform people. Charles Mackay used the term herd
mentality to explain why people did wild things when
they were in crowds. Gustave LeBon said that a
collective mind develops, and people are swept away by
suggestions. Robert Park said that collective unrest devel-
ops, which, fed by a circular reaction, leads to collective
impulses. Pp. 626–627.
What are the five stages of crowd behavior?
Herbert Blumer identified five stages that crowds go
through before they become an acting crowd: social un-
rest, an exciting event, milling, a common object of atten-
tion, and common impulses. Pp. 627–628.
The Contemporary View:
The Rationality of the Crowd
What is the current view of crowd behavior?
Current theorists view crowds as rational. Richard Berk
suggested a minimax strategy; that is, people try to min-
imize their costs and maximize their rewards, regardless
of whether they are alone, with friends, or in crowds.
In emergent norm theory, Ralph Turner and Lewis
Killian suggest that new norms emerge that allow people
to do things in crowds that they otherwise would not do.
Pp. 628–629.
Forms of Collective Behavior
What forms of collective behavior are there?
Forms of collective behavior include lynchings, riots, ru-
mors, panics, mass hysteria, moral panics, fads, fash-
ions, and urban legends. Conditions of uncertainty and
discontent provide fertile ground for collective behavior.
Each form of collective behavior provides a way of dealing
with these conditions. Pp. 629–638.
Types and Tactics of Social Movements
What types of social movements are there?
Social movements consist of large numbers of people
who organize to promote or resist social change. Depend-
ing on their target (individuals or society) and the amount
of social change that is desired (partial or complete), social
movements can be classified as alterative, redemptive, re-
formative, transformative, transnational, and metafor-
mative. Pp. 638–640.
How do social movement leaders select their tactics?
Leaders choose tactics on the basis of a group’s levels of
membership, its publics, and its relationship to authori-
ties. The three levels of membership are the inner core, the
committed, and the less committed. The predispositions of
the inner core are crucial in choosing tactics, but so is the
public they want to address. If relationships with author-
ities are bad, the chances of aggressive or violent tactics
increase. Pp. 640–641.
How are the mass media related to social movements?
The mass media are gatekeepers for social movements. Be-
cause the media’s favorable or unfavorable coverage affects
Summary and Review 649
public opinion, leaders choose tactics with the media in
mind. Leaders also use propaganda to further their
causes. Pp. 641–643.
Why People Join Social Movements
Why do people join social movements?
People often join social movements simply because they
know others in the movement. In addition, according to
mass society theory, social movements relieve feelings of
isolation created by an impersonal, bureaucratized soci-
ety. According to relative deprivation theory, people join
movements to redress their grievances. A sense of justice,
morality, values, and ideological commitment also moti-
vate people to join social movements. Agent provocateurs
illustrate that even people who oppose a cause may partic-
ipate in it. Pp. 643–645.
On the Success and Failure
of Social Movements
Why do social movements succeed or fail?
Groups that appeal to few people cannot succeed. To ap-
peal broadly in order to attain resource mobilization,
the movement must focus on broad concerns. These
concerns are embedded deeply in society, which makes
success difficult. Sociologists have identified five stages
of social movements: initial unrest and agitation, mobi-
lization, organization, institutionalization, and decline
and death. Resurgence of a declining social movement is
possible. In the social movement around abortion, op-
posing sides revitalize one another. Pp. 645–648.
THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT Chapter 21
1. Describe the different forms of collective behavior, and explain
why people participate in collective behavior.
2. Use sociological findings to analyze a rumor or an urban
legend you have heard or a fad you’ve participated in.
3. Analyze a social movement of your choice according to the
sociological principles and findings reviewed in this chapter.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
What can you find in MySocLab? www.mysoclab.com
• Complete Ebook
• Practice Tests and Video and Audio activities
• Mapping and Data Analysis exercises
• Sociology in the News
• Classic Readings in Sociology
• Research and Writing advice
Where Can I Read More on This Topic?
Suggested readings for this chapter are listed at the back of this book.
22
Chapter
Social Change
and the Environment